CCPR/C/130/D/2517/2014 documents include the record of his oral motion to provide him with a lawyer, which he presented to the Supreme Court during the cassation hearing, and a written motion, which he gave to the prison guard for transmittal to the cassation court by fax. 7.4 On 13 August 2018, the author clarified that, in his view, the State party is obliged to have his conviction reviewed by the Presidium of the Supreme Court, to quash his sentence of life imprisonment, to ensure that the new sentence is not based on any discriminatory or humiliating provisions of law, and to conduct a new trial with the participation of an appointed lawyer. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s observations that the author’s communication was submitted almost 10 years after his cassation appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and that submitting the communication after such a long lapse of time constitutes an abuse of the right of submission under the Committee’s rules of procedure. The Committee also notes the author’s assertion that he is legally illiterate and did not learn the Russian language until 2005, and his argument that since his communication was submitted only seven months after his appeal for a supervisory review was denied by the Supreme Court, it cannot be considered to be in violation of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 8.4 The Committee notes that there are no fixed time limits for the submission of communications under the Optional Protocol and that mere delay in submission does not of itself involve abuse of the right of to submit a communication. 5 However, in certain circumstances, the Committee expects a reasonable explanation justifying a delay. 6 The Committee observes that there is nothing in the submissions to suggest that the author tried further to appeal his conviction of 2003 – which had been upheld on cassation review in 2004 – or to submit an appeal to the Constitutional Court until 2013. The Committee notes that the author’s alleged legal illiteracy and lack of knowledge about his rights did not prevent him from defending himself in person during the cassation proceedings or from submitting successive appeals, to both domestic and international bodies. The Committee thus considers that the author has failed to provide a convincing explanation for the delay in submission. In the absence of such an explanation, the Committee considers that submitting the communication after such a long lapse of time constitutes an abuse of the right of submission. Accordingly, the Committee finds the communication inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 99 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 9. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; (b) 5 6 That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional That the decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. Polacková and Polacek v. Czech Republic (CCPR/C/90/D/1445/2006), para. 6.3; and D.S. v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/120/D/2705/2015), para. 6.4. D.S. v. Russian Federation, para. 6.4. 5